Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs Raman Iron Foundry on 12 March, 1974

M/S Lord Shiva Construction Company ... vs State Of Haryana And Others on 10 July, 2013

The Supreme Court in Union of India Vs Raman Iron Foundry's case (supra), thus, held that the claim for liquidated or unliquidated damages would, thus, stand on the same footing with the condition that in case of the stipulated amount it has the outer limit of the damages. The right of a party aggrieved by breach of contract is to sue for damages and the claim for damages does not become a debt until adjudication. There has to be, thus, an adjudication by a judicial forum or by arbitration.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vishal Engineers & Builders vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited on 30 October, 2011

17. The claim for liquidated damages for all practical purposes were held to stand on the same footing as the unliquidated damages in Union of India Vs. Raman Iron Foundry (1974) 2 SCC 231. The claim of unliquidated damages was, thus, held not to give rise to a debt until the liability is adjudicated and damages assessed by a decree or order of a court or other adjudicatory authority. The appellant was held not to have any right or authority to appropriate amounts of other pending bills of the respondent towards satisfaction of claim for damages against the respondent. The breach of contract does not eo instanti incur any pecuniary obligations, nor does the party complaining of the breach become entitled to a debt due from the other party. The only right which accrues at that moment is that the party aggrieved by the breach of contract has a right to sue for damages. Thus, when damages are assessed, the court in the first place must decide that the defendant is liable and then it proceeds to assess as to what is the damage.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 63 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. vs Cement Corporation Of India on 26 April, 2012

iii) Reliance is also placed upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Raman Iron Foundry, (1974) 2 SCC 231 and M/s. H.M. Kamaluddin Ansari and Co. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (1983) 4 SCC 417 to canvass the proposition that there is a difference between entitlement for withholding of the moneys and the right/entitlement to appropriate. It was argued, relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of the FAO(OS) No.39/2007 Page 14 of 22 Supreme Court that the entitlement to retain cannot be equated with appropriation or adjustment for which there will have to be necessary adjudication.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Killick Nixon Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 21 September, 2005

In this behalf a reference has been made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry, , to contend that the claim for damages for breach of contract is not a claim for sum presently due and payable and the purchaser is not entitled in exercise of the right conferred upon it under such a clause to recover the amount of such claim by appropriating other sums due to the contractor.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S K Kaul - Full Document
1